Shoho Jisso Sho (All Phenomena as Ultimate Reality)

Re: Shoho Jisso Sho (All Phenomena as Ultimate Reality)

Well, this teaching is why this writing spoke to me, and I always thought it was the main point of it. That's what I really wanted to discuss with this thread. Perhaps there are other writings that aren't in doubt as to their authenticity that contain this teaching, and someone can point them out.

Thats the thing for me as well...

if you get a clear teaching about it from Nichiren shonin and then read the fake ones and they are more or less complimentary of the original...well they could be of some use....

but if you only get the view of the fake gosho and no authentic Gosho even hints at the stuff being taught in the fake gosho ..

it's the work of Sansho Shima to confuse the right view...

i should not be so shocked at this for it means the teachings of Nichiren Shonin are under attack from the likes of Sansho shima due to their ability to liberate and train sentients unto the right path.

Re: Shoho Jisso Sho (All Phenomena as Ultimate Reality)

That part of that scripture, I have no problem with. I have a problem with the following:

"Therefore, the two Buddhas, Shakyamuni and Many Treasures, are Buddhas who are functions [of Myoho-renge-kyo]. It is Myoho-renge-kyo that is the true Buddha. This is what is described in the sutra as “the Thus Come One’s secret and his transcendental powers.” The “Thus Come One’s secret” refers to the entity of the Buddha’s three bodies, and it refers to the true Buddha. “His transcendental powers” refers to the functions of the three bodies, and it refers to provisional Buddhas. A common mortal is an entity of the three bodies, and a true Buddha. A Buddha is a function of the three bodies, and a provisional Buddha. In that case, though it is thought that Shakyamuni Buddha possesses the three virtues of sovereign, teacher, and parent for the sake of all of us living beings, that is not so. On the contrary, it is common mortals who endow him with the three virtues."

Admittedly, this is rather convoluted wording. I've always just taken it to mean that if it weren't for "common mortals," there wouldn't be a need for the Original Buddha. And/or that the Original Buddha appeared as a "common mortal." I never thought it meant that the Original Buddha is subservient to unenlightened beings.

The way Illaraza reads that passage to mean some sort of hierarchy is his own interpretation. Then he proceeds to attack this poor straw man.

Re: Shoho Jisso Sho (All Phenomena as Ultimate Reality)

That part of that scripture, I have no problem with. I have a problem with the following:

"Therefore, the two Buddhas, Shakyamuni and Many Treasures, are Buddhas who are functions [of Myoho-renge-kyo]. It is Myoho-renge-kyo that is the true Buddha. This is what is described in the sutra as “the Thus Come One’s secret and his transcendental powers.” The “Thus Come One’s secret” refers to the entity of the Buddha’s three bodies, and it refers to the true Buddha. “His transcendental powers” refers to the functions of the three bodies, and it refers to [the] provisional Buddhas. A common mortal is an entity of the three bodies, and a true Buddha. A Buddha is a function of the three bodies, and a provisional Buddha. In that case, though it is thought that Shakyamuni Buddha possesses the three virtues of sovereign, teacher, and parent for the sake of all of us living beings, that is not so. On the contrary, it is common mortals who endow him with the three virtues."

If you will forgive me some blibber-blabber, what is your problem with the following? Is it as Queequeg suggests: because you interpret it as introducing "some sort of hierarchy"?

Essence-function (體用) in Japanese is entity-function (体用) (or body-function, see footnote 15 on p. 122 of the above-cited paper: 体とは根本的なもの、第一性的なもの、用とは派生的、従属的、第二性的なもの、を相関的に 意味すべく用いられていること、である), but it means the same thing. Both of these terms can be interchangeably called "substance-function" depending on the tastes of the translator.

In Daoism, it is a ontological theory, in Buddhism, it "links the inner meaning of the doctrine with its verbal [or textual] expressions" (Muller, 114-5 from the same paper cited above).

In the above-cited paper, on page 122, there is a quotation from Sung Bae Park's Buddhist Faith and Sudden Enlightenment:

The purpose of the tǐ yòng [essence-function, 體用/体用], formula is to show the inseparability of two seemingly separate but in reality nondistinct things. One of the earliest classical works of Chán literature, the Platform Sutra, illustrated the relation between tǐ and yòng with the analogy of a lamp and its light…Thus, the purpose of the tǐ yòng hermeneutic device in Chinese Buddhist texts is to remove false discriminations originating from a dualistic way of thinking, as reflected in such dichotomies as subject-object, means-end, cause-effect, arising-cessation, and birth-death. (36)

I have bolded some points relevant to the (non-)binary between "essence/entity/body" & "function" in the quote I selected from your text.

Consider this in light of a quote from the Venerable Madhyamika Jízàng's 二諦義 ("Two truths' exegesis"):

二卽體用。不二卽用體。
Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.

Ven Jízàng's "two" and "not two" refer to the relations between the two truths in a way that looks forward towards Ven Zhìyǐ & Tiāntāi.

Consider this in light of the statement from Ven Nichiren. Two is the function. Śākyamuni Buddha & Prabhūtaratna Buddha are "function". Not two is the essence/entity. 南無妙法蓮華經 is the essence/entity/substance.

Re: Shoho Jisso Sho (All Phenomena as Ultimate Reality)

That part of that scripture, I have no problem with. I have a problem with the following:

"Therefore, the two Buddhas, Shakyamuni and Many Treasures, are Buddhas who are functions [of Myoho-renge-kyo]. It is Myoho-renge-kyo that is the true Buddha. [...] refers to the functions of the three bodies, and it refers to [the] provisional Buddhas

[...]

I have bolded some points relevant to the (non-)binary between "essence/entity/body" & "function" in the quote I selected from your text.

For further clarification on these bolding choices. Essence-function and true-provisional are frequently treated as analogous.

Further clarification on the string of Japanese text above (体とは根本的なもの、第一性的なもの、用とは派生的、従属的、第二性的なもの、を相関的に 意味すべく用いられていること、である), 体 & 用 are meant to by highlighted to show 体 occupying the same position as 體 (the bolding & underlyning doesn't come across well with the font used here for Chinese), which it is apparently a variant of, according to wiktionary. This point is also discussed in the Muller paper, where he lists various other characters that have stood in for 體.

Re: Shoho Jisso Sho (All Phenomena as Ultimate Reality)

Essence-function and true-provisional are frequently treated as analogous.
体 occupying the same position as 體 (the bolding & underlyning doesn't come across well with the font used here for Chinese), which it is apparently a variant of, according to wiktionary. This point is also discussed in the Muller paper, where he lists various other characters that have stood in for 體.

Ah, its common for characters to be simplified like that.

One of the issues in a Nichiren context is that there is a debate about whether "discarding the provisional" literally means discarding everything but the Lotus Sutra. Within that, there are debates about whether this also means discarding the trace teachings (first half) and only preserving the original teachings (second half), or more radically, relying only on the Chapter and Two Halves and discarding everything else, or finally, discarding everything but the daimoku.

Its all more or less indicating "discarding", whether that means to not rely on it as true, or just throwing it out all together.

I would venture to say, those that preserve the provisional as understood through the elucidation of the true tend to be more universal in outlook, with higher degrees of tolerance. Those who tend toward privileging the true over the provisional tend to be more sectarian.

Re: Shoho Jisso Sho (All Phenomena as Ultimate Reality)

When I read Ven Chegwan, who is definitely/likely quoting Ven Zhìyǐ, he states:

disclosing the prior sudden and gradual, and merging it into the teaching that is neither sudden nor gradual. Therefore it is called disclosing the provisional and revealing the true. It is also called discarding the expedient and establishing the real, and it is also called uniting the three and returning them to the one.

I see the three descriptions as all equally applying to what comes before them.

Namely: the merging.

I see the three descriptions, as "disclosing the provisions [so as to] reveal the truth [inside the provisional]", "discarding the expedient to establish the real[ity that there is no difference between the expedient and the real]", and "uniting the three diverse perspectives/truths, [perhaps 1) sudden 2) gradual 3) neither-sudden-nor-gradual?] and returning them to one". But that is only my interpretation.

From the above, "the truth [inside the provisional]" refers to the way I am reading "disclose the provisional" (開權, IMO "open the provisional" is also possible). When one opens/discloses/explains the provisional, the action of "opening" enacts a transformation* in conception of the provisional, namely, it is no longer "provisional", though it itself has not changed. Like the furniture in a room is not rearranged by adding light. The provisional and ultimate are every bit the provisional and ultimate they were before, but now there is non-obstruction (無礙) were before obstruction was imagined.

Now how this actually works I do not know. The provisional is 'apparent' as different from the ultimate. It seems that the process/act of "opening" the provisional here (there is a wonderful quote from Ven Zhìyǐ to do with comparing the opening of the upāyāḥ/provisionals with the opening of the lotus blossom, but I cannot find it atm, alas) is as aloof and subtle as the difference between awakened and non-awakened.

In short, I see the four-character unit of 開權顯實, meaning "to open the provisional and reveal truth", as a single description of one central action. The rendering of the phrase into English as "it is called disclosing the provisional and revealing the true" is interesting. I chose to bold the word "and" because this word is absent from the original Chinese for the simple reason that in Chinese it is not necessary. This is to illustrate how perhaps someone could read the English (or the Chinese for that matter tbh) and determine that two propositions are being made, or that two actions are being referred to: 1) the disclosing of the provisional (which is 'one thing') and 2) the revelation of the truth (which is 'another thing'). One can potentially read this threefold phrase from Ven Zhìyǐ and determine that this is establishing the provisional and something "separate" from the ultimate. That it is establishing the so-called "provisional" as "to be done away with" and the so-called "ultimate" as "to be revealed". The opening of the provisional is the revelation of truth.

"Discarding the expedient" (廢權) seems to be where individuals may get the notion to abandon certain discourses. I will add my response to this section of the quote shortly, but to summarize the above, I view this as synonymous with "disclosing the provisional to reveal the truth"/開權顯實 in so much as 廢權立實 is a four-character phrase in two clauses referring to a singular action/activity as much as 開權顯實 is a four-character phrase of two clauses referring to a singular action/activity.

Re: Shoho Jisso Sho (All Phenomena as Ultimate Reality)

When I read Ven Chegwan, who is definitely/likely quoting Ven Zhìyǐ, he states:

disclosing the prior sudden and gradual, and merging it into the teaching that is neither sudden nor gradual. Therefore it is called disclosing the provisional and revealing the true. It is also called discarding the expedient and establishing the real, and it is also called uniting the three and returning them to the one.

I see the three descriptions as all equally applying to what comes before them.

Namely: the merging.

I see the three descriptions, as "disclosing the provisions [so as to] reveal the truth [inside the provisional]", "discarding the expedient to establish the real[ity that there is no difference between the expedient and the real]", and "uniting the three diverse perspectives/truths, [perhaps 1) sudden 2) gradual 3) neither-sudden-nor-gradual?] and returning them to one". But that is only my interpretation.

From the above, "the truth [inside the provisional]" refers to the way I am reading "disclose the provisional" (開權, IMO "open the provisional" is also possible). When one opens/discloses/explains the provisional, the action of "opening" enacts a transformation* in conception of the provisional, namely, it is no longer "provisional", though it itself has not changed. Like the furniture in a room is not rearranged by adding light. The provisional and ultimate are every bit the provisional and ultimate they were before, but now there is non-obstruction (無礙) were before obstruction was imagined.

One of the examples from the Lotus Sutra is the parable of the Rich Father and Poor Son, right? Son was already the son, but he was so deranged his father who only wanted to bring him home, terrified the young man. The young man was hired to do menial labor and eventually promoted. When the father announced the son's real identity, nothing about the son's work history changed, but its real significance was revealed.

Enlightenment is said to have the same effect. When the Buddha reveals to us his real identity (and ours), nothing changes, really, except that the real significance of our circumstances is made apparent.

To put it into Ziporyn terms...

Man walks into a bar and takes a seat. As he sits he hears faint piano music. Man says to the bartender, "Say, where's that music coming from?"
Bartender looks up from polishing a glass and nods to the end of the bar.
At the end of the bar, to the man's astonishment, is a tiny man playing a tiny piano. The man walks over to have a closer look. Indeed, it is a real, miniature man, playing a miniature piano. The man is excited and says, "Holy Cow! Where did he come from?"
Bartender, looking sullen, reaches behind him and pulls down a little dusty bottle from the shelf. "There's a genie in there. If you rub the bottle, he'll come out and grant you one wish."
Man, looks in disbelief, "You're kidding me." He walks over to take a closer look at the bottle. Its a somewhat ornate looking bottle with a silver stopper, with ancient looking grime encrusted. He rubs it a few times and the cork pops off. A green haze flows from the open bottle and surprisingly fills the room. From somewhere in the haze, a hacking cough can be heard, and then a gaunt looking genie emerges waiving his arms, trying to clear the haze.
"I'll grant you a wish. Whaddaaya want?"
The man is stunned and just stares.
"Come on, you woke me up, make it quick."
"Um, uh, um, I, uh, I, I want a million bucks."
"Really? OK."
In an flash of white light and smoke, the genie disappeared, and the room was full of quacking ducks, floor to ceiling.
The man, in shock, says, "What the fu..."
Bartender says, "Well, what do you think? You think I asked for a twelve inch pianist?"

Now how this actually works I do not know.

One attains the Buddha wisdom. One understands the full implications of the Buddha's infinite life span.

"So, you think I was born in Lumbini, awoke at Gaya, taught at Sarnath, and will die at Kusinagara. Actually, I've always been Buddha. I've always been your teacher. I've been teaching you since I attained enlightenment. All those things I taught you were expedients so that I could explain my real life span (your real life span), our real relationship, your real aspect."

Its the same pattern throughout the sutra. This is the structure of the Tientai teachings.

The questions always is, how do we get to see the way the Buddha sees it? Aye, there's the rub!

Re: Shoho Jisso Sho (All Phenomena as Ultimate Reality)

The questions always is, how do we get to see the way the Buddha sees it? Aye, there's the rub!

It's all about compassion and then duty .

i cured my father when compassion drove me to doing it in trust.

i said ok if this is true i need to make sure it works and i need to do the most i can...so i chanted seven hours a day ..all my free time...i would rush to the Butsudan after eating...

i recall telling people 'When Tom told me that he would get cured or this religion is a lie and don't come back." he instilled a sort of responsibility in me to make it so.

if you want something...i know i know my last post was about focusing solely on the Daimoku and Gohonzon and letting everything go...
but it's like this....if you want something...try to see where the compassion angle is...is there one...are you wanting for the sake of yourself or to add to someone or society...then if it truly is something for an other or society and it includes you...make that your determination and then just Do when you are chanting...like bow and say ok this is the time for chanting...i need to have this come about for me and so and so , or so and so...

here goes...nothing else matters for the next hour...even that which you are determined to accomplish...put it on the back burner....and then just meditate on what you are doing ..chanting with gohonzon.

I have no problem with the part of the Shoho Jisso sho that teaches, "The entities of all phenomena are entities of Myoho-renge-kyo. That is the meaning of ''the true aspect of all phenomena.'" It is the mixing of the clean with the unclean that is so dangerous about this writing and most forged texts.

the truly wierdness about it is this....you cry foul over and over about SGI and all you can come up with is a forgery gosho and decide it is ok because you have no problem with it....

and what is sam hell does this even mean?

"The entities of all phenomena are entities of Myoho-renge-kyo.

It's from a forgery and i think you tweeked it ..
is that a quote from a forged gosho ...or you paraphrasing a fake gosho...

That part of that scripture, I have no problem with. I have a problem with the following:

"Therefore, the two Buddhas, Shakyamuni and Many Treasures, are Buddhas who are functions [of Myoho-renge-kyo]. It is Myoho-renge-kyo that is the true Buddha. This is what is described in the sutra as “the Thus Come One’s secret and his transcendental powers.” The “Thus Come One’s secret” refers to the entity of the Buddha’s three bodies, and it refers to the true Buddha. “His transcendental powers” refers to the functions of the three bodies, and it refers to provisional Buddhas. A common mortal is an entity of the three bodies, and a true Buddha. A Buddha is a function of the three bodies, and a provisional Buddha. In that case, though it is thought that Shakyamuni Buddha possesses the three virtues of sovereign, teacher, and parent for the sake of all of us living beings, that is not so. On the contrary, it is common mortals who endow him with the three virtues."

Admittedly, this is rather convoluted wording. I've always just taken it to mean that if it weren't for "common mortals," there wouldn't be a need for the Original Buddha. And/or that the Original Buddha appeared as a "common mortal." I never thought it meant that the Original Buddha is subservient to unenlightened beings.

The way Illaraza reads that passage to mean some sort of hierarchy is his own interpretation. Then he proceeds to attack this poor straw man.

No QQ, that is how SGI reads it and therefore they deprecate Shakyamuni Buddha. I have actually read and heard them say, " for this reason, we are superior to Shakyamuni Buddha." Good luck attaining Buddhahood with that conceit and arrogance. I'm sure Narhwale will chime in, "I never heard that in the SGI but it is true in my experience and what is written on the Net, particularly A.R.B.N (Google groups alternate religion Buddhism of Nichiren). Daisaku Ikeda and his disciples are so jealous of Shakyamuni Buddha that they threw him out of his own religion. Years ago, on the Alternate Religion of Nichiren Google group, when former members would assert the centrality of Ikeda to SGI, SGI members would retort, "Shakyamuni the Easter Bunny" or "Shakyamuni Buddha... do you mean Santa Claus?" Isn't it strange that Shakyamuni Buddha, not only is rarely mentioned [in a so-called Nichiren sect] but they defame him. Nichiren mentions Shakyamuni Buddha thousands of times and with great reverence and deference. Were people to follow the Law rather than the person [of Ikeda], there would be no SGI. They fear Shakyamuni Buddha and the Lotus Sutra because belief in them [rather than Ikeda and the SGI] will put them out of a job.

Admittedly, this is rather convoluted wording. I've always just taken it to mean that if it weren't for "common mortals," there wouldn't be a need for the Original Buddha. And/or that the Original Buddha appeared as a "common mortal." I never thought it meant that the Original Buddha is subservient to unenlightened beings.

The way Illaraza reads that passage to mean some sort of hierarchy is his own interpretation. Then he proceeds to attack this poor straw man.

No QQ, that is how SGI reads it and therefore they deprecate Shakyamuni Buddha.

So they see "function" here as "lesser manifestation" or "(wrong) hīnayāna version" essentially?

Re: Shoho Jisso Sho (All Phenomena as Ultimate Reality)

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:21 pm

by narhwal90

In the old Nichiren Shoshu days, pre lotus sutra teachings were viewed as provisional ie ineffective in the latter day of the law (now). That language is gone from SGI, the general perspective is that Sakyamuni demonstrates all have the buddha nature and Nichiren shows us how to manifest it. There are some old-timers who occasionally echo the old NSA sentiments, others are respectful and have moved on from the old days. At no time in my recollection of SGI or NSA have practioners ever been elevated over Sakyamuni, which would profoundly violate Nichiren's attitude towards Sakyamuni as shown in the gosho.

Re: Shoho Jisso Sho (All Phenomena as Ultimate Reality)

No QQ, that is how SGI reads it and therefore they deprecate Shakyamuni Buddha. I have actually read and heard them say, " for this reason, we are superior to Shakyamuni Buddha." Good luck attaining Buddhahood with that conceit and arrogance. I'm sure Narhwale will chime in, "I never heard that in the SGI but it is true in my experience and what is written on the Net, particularly A.R.B.N (Google groups alternate religion Buddhism of Nichiren). Daisaku Ikeda and his disciples are so jealous of Shakyamuni Buddha that they threw him out of his own religion. Years ago, on the Alternate Religion of Nichiren Google group, when former members would assert the centrality of Ikeda to SGI, SGI members would retort, "Shakyamuni the Easter Bunny" or "Shakyamuni Buddha... do you mean Santa Claus?" Isn't it strange that Shakyamuni Buddha, not only is rarely mentioned [in a so-called Nichiren sect] but they defame him. Nichiren mentions Shakyamuni Buddha thousands of times and with great reverence and deference. Were people to follow the Law rather than the person [of Ikeda], there would be no SGI. They fear Shakyamuni Buddha and the Lotus Sutra because belief in them [rather than Ikeda and the SGI] will put them out of a job.

No, Doc. You're monomaniacal zeal blinds you to the context. Markatex is not and has never been an SGI member. Your criticism in the context is out of place. You beat on a straw man and so we just stand back and watch you flail.

What's interesting to note is that to say all dharmas are entities of Myohorengekyo are actually based on quotes from Zhiyi and Zhanran.

But don't worry about those details. Doc says these writings are forgeries, so... On his authority.

Re: Shoho Jisso Sho (All Phenomena as Ultimate Reality)

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:26 pm

by Coëmgenu

Related to the OP, if anyone has Swanson's recent translation of Móhēzhǐguān, they will find an interesting passage in the footnotes on page 212-3.

It is a quotation of the Venerable Zhìyǐ's of the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra. In comes in the synopsis on bodhicitta, at "spontaneous bodhicitta". I decided to follow Swanson's footnotes and have a look at the Uttarekayānaratnagotraśāstra (T1611) that Swanson cites which has the full passage in parallel.

佛子。譬如有一極大經卷。如一三千大千世界。大千世界一切所有無不記錄。
[O] Bodhisattvāḥ. It is as if there is a single voluminous great sūtra bound. As if it is like the trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu. Like the trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu all entirely without exception remembered and recorded.

[… summarizing here a long section of various things remembered and recorded, like details about Sumeru and Indra’s Palace …]

彼等三千大千世界極大經卷。
As if there are these things and more of the trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu in the voluminous great sūtra bound.

在一極細小微塵內。一切微塵皆亦如是。時 有一人出興於世。智慧聰達具足成就清淨天眼。
It is as if it [i.e. the sūtra] is in one extremely minute particle’s interior. And it is as if it were in all particles’, each and every one’s, interiors also like this. Eventually there is a man who goes forth to flourish in a generation. Wise, acute, able to accomplish the goal, with clear divine sight.

見此經卷在微塵內。作如是念。云何如此廣大經卷在微塵內而不饒益諸眾生耶。
H regards this sūtra bound in atoms’ interiors. He speaks aloud like this: Why in this way is the voluminous great sūtra bound in atoms’ interiors and not [unbound] for the benefit of all sentient beings?

我今應當勤作方便破彼微塵出此經卷饒益 眾生。作是念已。爾時彼人即作方便。
I presently shall muster great perseverance and power to break these atoms and send forth the sūtra bound for the benefit of all sentient beings. Then that man promptly musters power.

破壞微塵出此經卷饒益眾生。佛子。如來智慧。無相智慧。無閡智慧。具足在於眾生身中。
He breaks the atoms sending forth the sūtra bound for the benefit of all sentient beings. [O] Bodhisattvāḥ! The tathāgata’s wisdom. The signless wisdom. The unobstructed wisdom. It perfectly dwells within all sentient beings' minds.

但愚癡眾生顛倒想覆。不知不見不生信心。
Yet in ignorance, sentient beings err and think it covered. Not knowing, not seeing, not giving rise to faith.